D as Diagramming: An Integrated Framework for Studying Knowledge Diagrams (Part 1)
Diagramming for Knowledge Curation
The above diagram is an integrated Framework for studying knowledge diagrams. I introduced the diagram in a previous article D as Diagramming: Hexagram, Symbolic Culture, and Diagram Choices.
The diagram is an outcome of a work of Diagram Blending. Its structure is adopted from a meta-diagram which is generated from a metaphor: Mind as Play. Its four perspectives are adopted from an integrated epistemological framework which curates various theoretical approaches within four conceptual spaces. You can find more details about the metaphor and the epistemological framework from the previous article D as Diagramming: The Mind as Play Metaphor.
This post is part of D as Diagramming project which aims to explore the power of diagrams and diagramming. What I really want to know is the value of diagrams for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in particular. I started the project on August 10, 2021.
In order to summarize what I learned from the project, I created the above framework.
1. A meta-diagram
Diagram is one of my essential three knowledge units. I love to dwell in thought with diagramming. I even wrote a 108-page thesis that develops a theory about diagrams and diagramming in 2018. I consider two groups of ideas for my theory about diagrams. The first group is “meta-diagram, diagram, and diagram system” and the second group is “diagramming as an activity of knowing, theorizing and reflecting”.
The notion of “meta-diagram” considers a special type of diagram as an independent thing that doesn’t have to be a representation of an existing theory or model. For example, the 2x2 matrix diagram is a meta-diagram that doesn’t refer to any concrete theory or model such as BCG’s Growth-share matrix. A diagram system is a series of diagrams that share an intrinsic spatial logic and a visual identity.
In the past several years, I designed a series of meta-diagrams for myself. By using these meta-diagrams, I can easily create new diagrams for knowledge frameworks. Eventually, I built a network of diagrams which represents a network of ideas.
The above diagram is one of the meta-diagrams I designed. It was created with a metaphor named Mind as Play. Inspired by the American sociologist Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, I developed a metaphor for everyday cognitive activities. Goffman viewed theatre as a metaphor and developed the dramaturgical analysis method for sociological study. For Goffman, everyday life is a theatre. For me, everyday cognitive activities are a play.
The Mind as Play metaphor has three core elements:
- Domain = Stage
- Objects of Knowing = Actors
- Perspectives = Stage Lights
I finished the Mind as Play framework at the end of 2016 and started applying it for my own learning journey of theoretical perspectives. Later, I designed a meta-diagram to represent the metaphor. I named it the Stage meta-diagram.
The core of the Stage meta-diagram is an Object of Knowing with three nested circles which represent nested layers: Layer 3 [Layer 2 (Layer 1)]. For example, I consider “Diagramming for Knowledge Curation” as an Object of Knowing for the D as Diagramming project, its nested conceptual structure can be understood as Explicit Knowledge [Diagramming (Tacit Knowledge)]. See the diagram below.
If we only want to show a nested conceptual structure, it doesn’t matter if we use circles or ellipses. If we move to visual graphic design, then we can’t ignore the difference in visual layout between circles and ellipses. Actually, this is one of the reasons why we need an integrated framework for studying knowledge diagrams.
The second component of the Stage meta-diagram in five states. In fact, you can use Steps, Phases, Types, Categories, etc for your own frameworks. You can also use four, six, or other numbers.
The third component is the four perspectives. Again, you can use three, five, six, or other numbers.
The Stage meta-diagram is for developing integrated frameworks because it supports multi-layers, multi-states, and multi-perspectives. It is a simple but powerful tool for visualizing complex ideas. For example, I used it to develop an epistemology of Domain several months ago.
2. Diagrams and Knowledge Frameworks
If you read my articles about diagrams, you probably notice that I used the term Diagrams interchangeably with Knowledge Frameworks.
What’s actually the difference between these two things? It’s hard to give a definition to the concept of Diagram. For the D as Diagramming project, I set simple criteria for sorting diagrams: the number of concepts contained in a diagram. The rule refers to the following question:
How many concepts does a diagram aim to represent?
If a diagram only represents one concept, then I call it a Single Concept Diagram. If a diagram represents more than one concept and the relationship between these concepts, then I call it a Multiple Concepts Diagram.
- Single Concept Diagram: this is not a knowledge framework.
- Multiple Concepts Diagram: this is a knowledge framework.
For example, the picture below shows 15 diagrams that are the foundation of Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Theory. Each diagram refers to a concept that points to a property of life from the perspective of Christopher Alexander’s philosophy.
Though Christopher Alexander’s ideas form an answer philosophical theoretical framework, each diagram can’t be understood as a knowledge framework. If someone combines these 15 diagrams into one single diagram, then I’d like to accept the single diagram as a knowledge framework.
My primary interest is not Single Concept Diagrams, but Multiple Concept Diagrams. When I used the term Diagrams interchangeably with Knowledge Frameworks, I always talked about Multiple Concepts Diagrams.
3. The Diagramming Practice
I have mentioned three phases and three functions of diagramming for academic knowledge building in a previous article D as Diagramming: Knowledge Building and Academic Creativity.
- Phase 1: Curating for Understanding
- Phase 2: Creating for Sense-making
- Phase 3: Improving for Communicating
At different phases, creators act with diagrams for different purposes. Though the above diagram is about academic creativity, the model can be applied to non-academic activities such as online workshops and personal reflections.
Creators could adopt metaphors and cultural signs for sense-making and design a diagram or knowledge framework for their purpose. Creators also can only use the geometric approach to design visual areas and match these visual areas with their conceptual spaces.
For communicating, it faces the challenge of considering the tacit knowledge of audiences from diverse cultural backgrounds. The best case is that the diagram has some elements which are familiar to target audiences. The worst case is that the diagram brings unexpected negative consequences for a particular group of audiences.
In order to discuss the purpose of diagramming in various contexts, I adopted a typology about human activities and social practices from my 2017 work. The typology focused on the “actor” and asked one question: how does the actor act? Originally, I found five typical types of actions: Think, Say, Make, Play, and Curate. Later, I added more types such as “Count” into the list and renamed it as meta-practices which means basic forms of human activities and social practices.
For the D as Diagramming project, I use the above five basic forms of social practices: Think, Count, Present, Talk, and Curate. Since the project is more about producing knowledge, I don’t consider Make and Play. As mentioned above, the Stage meta-diagram encourages you to decide the number of concepts. We can expand the five meta-practices to seven meta-practices if we need to do it.
- Think: using diagrams for thinking about an idea, a problem, a topic…
- Count: using diagrams to present data…
- Present: using diagrams for presentation, pitch…
- Talk: using diagrams for meetings, discussions …
- Curate: using diagrams for turning pieces into a meaningful whole…
- Make: using diagrams (such as IEKA assembly instructions) for making something (such as a TV cart)…
- Play: using diagrams for entertainment and fun activities…
As mentioned above, my primary interest is in developing knowledge frameworks. Though diagrams are used in various types of social practice and fields, I personally focus on knowledge building, academic creativity, epistemic development, and similar intellectual practices.
4. Four Perspectives
In the previous article D as Diagramming: The Mind as Play Metaphor, I introduced an epistemological integrated framework for understanding mind, meaning, and experience. The framework uses four conceptual spaces to curate various theoretical approaches together.
The above diagram shows four conceptual spaces which are named the “Architecture” space, the “Relevance” space, the “Opportunity” space, and the “Activity” space. Each conceptual space refers to a set of similar theoretical approaches.
Each conceptual space can generate several perspectives. For example, the “Activity” space can generate the following perspectives:
- Mediating Instrument
- Division of Labour
- Transformation of Object
- Levels of Contradictions
The above four perspectives are adopted from Activity Theory which is one of the theoretical approaches to the “Activity” space.
Thus, the epistemological integrated framework has three levels:
- Conceptual spaces
- Theoretical approaches
- Practical perspectives
For me, this is a meta-framework that aims to produce practical perspectives or concepts for creating knowledge frameworks with meta-diagrams.
For the diagram framework, I selected the following practical perspectives:
- Cognitive Representation
- Cultural Significance
- Ecological Situation
- Mediating Instrument
The following sections will apply these perspectives to discuss the diagramming practice.
5. Cognitive Representation
Cognitive Representation is a term of cognitive science. Though scientists and scholars have various understandings of cognitive science, there are two simple goals of cognitive science: 1) explain cognitive phenomena, and 2) construct artificial systems that can solve various cognitive tasks (Peter Gardenfors, 2000).
For people who love diagrams, there is a very easy-to-understand goal: Putting thought into the world. According to the cognitive scientist Barbara Tversky, “We put thought in the world for so many reasons. To remember, remind, and record. To inform, to influence, to boast. To contemplate, compute, organize, rearrange, design, and create. To play the future. To reminisce about the past, or to use it to think about the present or to plan the future. To show others and collaborate, then we’re literally on the same page and we can point to, gesture on, and move around ideas, more efficient and precise than using words.” (2019, p.191)
As a special type of cognitive representation, knowledge diagrams combine Visualization and Conceptualization. This leads to a classical issue: Form and Content. A great knowledge diagram should achieve a perfect form-content fit which has three challenges:
- How to develop a unique conceptualization?
- How to develop a unique visualization?
- How to match visualization with conceptualization?
5.1 Develop a unique conceptualization
If you are a thinker, you need to create brand-new ideas. You can’t just steal others’ ideas and frame them with a new visualization unless you are only a visual designer.
Some thinkers just use words to represent their thoughts. For example, the Austrian philosopher and social phenomenologist Alfred Schutz is a creative theorist whose work applied phenomenology to sociology. Alfred Schutz established a brand new theoretical approach to analyzing everyday experience and social reality. For example, he offers a framework for describing the structure of life world. However, if you read his writings, you can’t find diagrams that visualize the structure of life world.
The above diagrams are quoted from Benjamin Sheredos’ 2019 paper Being Together, World Apart: A Virtual-Worldly Phenomenology. Figure 1 visualizes Schutz’s phenomenological approach in a simple diagram. Figure 2 uses the diagram as a basic unit and expands to a new framework for discussing virtual worlds.
If a thinker does great work on conceptualization without a final diagram, then it means there is a creative opportunity for following thinkers and designers.
5.2 Develop a unique visualization
A unique visualization creates a brand new identity for a knowledge framework, it also offers a special spatial configuration for conceptualization. Searching for a unique visualization is also part of the process of thought.
In his autobiography, the social psychologist Fritz Heider mentioned his mentor Kurt Lewin’s creative visualization for theoretical thoughts, “He had always been concerned with the way in which we think about psychological processes and how we represent such processes in our theories. He had learned from the philosopher Ernst Cassirer about the importance of mathematical language in the natural sciences, and he had found a kind of mathematics called topology that he believed would fit psychological problems. I remember when he first told me about his use of topology: it was a cold winter evening, and some snow had fallen. While we waited for a tram, he used the tip of his umbrella to trace a small circle enclosed by a larger oval on the snow-covered pavement. He explained that these figures represented the person within his own life space. Then he drew a little plus sign within the oval — that was the person’s goal — and a line separating the person from the goal, which was a barrier. Thus he was able to represent many situations by means of topological mathematics. These symbolic diagrams were very convincing. They also provided an admirable method for thinking about different kinds of action and life situations and for discussing them with others. By offering a language more rigorous than that of everyday life, they were helpful in suggesting new theoretical formulations for study.” (1983, p.79)
Kurt Lewin is a knowledge hero behind the D as Diagramming project. He was a German-American psychologist, known as one of the modern pioneers of social, organizational, and applied psychology in the United States. Five years ago, I read his 1936 book Principles of Topological Psychology and I was shocked by his creativity in using diagramming to describe complex theoretical ideas. He adopted geometric topology to develop a brand new psychological theory. This is my starting point for studying diagramming.
Kurt Lewin designed a series of diagrams for his topological psychology. I consider his diagrams a great example of a Diagram System which means a set of diagrams share the same visual identity and the same conceptual ideas.
The above diagram visualizes an example of the vocational goal of a sixteen-year-old boy (P) is to become a physician from the perspective of topological psychology. According to Lewin, “The ‘path’ to this goal (G) leads through definite stages: college-entrance examinations (ce), college (c), medical school (m), internship (i), establishing a practice (pr). The boy may have a fairly clear idea of college. Medical school and the following stages may constitute a more or less undifferentiated region ‘beyond’ which lies the goal of being a physician. Of this the boy may have a false but nevertheless a clear picture.” (1936, p.64)
While Lewin’s theory is about individual psychology, Fritz Heider works on social psychology. The success of Lewin’s psychology in representing action inspired Heider to search for his own method of visualization. Heider points out that in order to make progress in science, one has to find some way of fashioning a systematic representation of the material with which one is trying to deal. However, he realized that topology doesn’t match his account, “I soon saw that topology, as it had been developed by Lewin, did not help much with the description of processes going on between persons: there we often have to deal not with just one life space but with the relations and interactions between two or more life spaces. Frequently it is important to describe what one person thinks about another person’s beliefs, hopes, and fears, or even to describe the effect of A’s thoughts about what B thinks about C’s wishes. I once described my difficulties with topology to Lewin; but he could not solve my problems; so I discarded topology.” (1983, p.144)
Finally, Heider found his own way of visualization. What kind of diagrams did he make? See the pictures below.
What’s the difference between Heider’s diagrams and Lewin’s diagrams? Both of them are guided by mathematical thinking. However, Lewin’s diagrams contain conceptual spaces which refer to a person’s psychological state while Heider’s diagrams focus on lines that refer to relationships between entities.
Thinkers don’t have to work on designing diagrams for their knowledge frameworks. However, conceptualization is a dynamic process. Thinkers might use diagrams for capturing their rough ideas. Moreover, a unique diagram can grow into a diagram network which is a great container for curating a network of ideas.
5.3 Match Visualization with Conceptualization
Barbara Tversky emphasizes two general cognitive design principles in her 2019 book Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought (p.193):
- Principle of Correspondence: The content and form of the representation should match the content and form of the targeted concepts.
- Principle of Use: The representation should promote the efficient accomplishment of the targeted tasks.
According to Barbara Tversky, “Designers should consider how users will understand the representations and how they will use them, but clearly, designers of visualizations, like designers of anything, cannot anticipate all the ways people will understand and use their designs. In fact, the new understandings and new uses can be creative and significant in themselves.” (p.193)
These two principles refer to a quartet: Thinker — Diagram — Thought — Audience. Barbara Tversky also points out that these two principles can and will conflict because they will lead to radically different designs. Since we will talk about “Self — Other” in the following section, now let’s focus on the Principle of Correspondence from the perspective of “Architecture” space which is labeled with “Self, Abstract, Rational, Static”.
There are four situations of matching Visualization with Conceptualization:
- Visualization doesn’t match Conceptualization
- Conceptualization doesn’t match Visualization
- Normal match between Visualization and Conceptualization
- Creative match between Visualization and Conceptualization
As mentioned above, though Fritz Heider liked the topology approach, however, he realized that it doesn’t match his theoretical thoughts. So, he decided to choose another approach for visualization.
If we adopt a meta-diagram to develop a framework, for example, the 2x2 matrix diagram. What about if we only consider three categories? What about if we want to claim that there are five categories? The diagram below is a popular framework for sense-making, it is a great example that Conceptualization doesn’t match Visualization. The author wants to retain the visual layout of the 2x2 matrix, however, the conceptualization refers to five categories. Thus, the author uses Visualization to frame Conceptualization and puts one category in the center of the diagram.
In a previous article, I introduced an example of using the Star of David for a group discussion on community design. This is an example of a normal match between Visualization and Conceptualization.
In the past 12 months, I did a creative match between Visualization and Conceptualization when I was working on the Activity U project which aims to review the historical development of Activity Theory. In the past decade, one major development of the theory is Andy Blunden’s theoretical approach “Project as a unit of Activity”.
In order to develop the theoretical foundation of “Project as a unit of Activity”, Blunden adopts Hegel’s Logic and Vygotsky’s theory about Concept as theoretical resources. The process is documented in three books: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity (2010), Concepts: A Critical Approach (2012), and Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study (2014).
One of three significant notions of Blunden’s approach is Goethe’s “germ-cell”. In fact, I should say Goethe’s “Urphänomen”. It is just the same concept with different words. However, Goethe’s word is “Urphänomen”. Blunden has written many articles about the notion of “germ-cell”. You can start from this one: The Unit of Analysis and Germ Cell in Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky (2020).
Each year, I always pick one idea I learned within one year as the idea of the year. The notion of “germ-cell” is so powerful, I just picked it as my idea of 2020. According to Blunden, “…in order to understand a complex process as an integral whole or gestalt, we have to identify and understand just its simplest immediately given part — a radical departure from the ‘Newtonian’ approach to science based on discovering intangible forces and hidden laws” (2020). Blunden has given us several successful examples of applying the idea of “germ-cell” for social science, such as Hegel’s formulation of the idea, Marx’s Capital, and Vygotsky’s five ideas.
Can we apply the idea of “germ-cell” to diagramming for social science?
I accepted this challenge with a concrete task: designing a series of diagrams for Blunden’s Project-oriented Activity Theory with a germ-cell diagram.
This task echoes my ideas about “meta-diagram, diagram and diagram system”. A germ-cell diagram is a special type of meta-diagram that can easily generate a diagram system with the same intrinsic spatial logic. A typical structure of a diagram system is a multiple-level analysis system. The first challenge of adopting a germ-cell diagram is to design a spatial logic that can apply to different levels of a multiple-level diagram system. In other words, we only need one spatial logic for the whole system since the one spatial logic is a whole.
The above diagram is a “germ-cell” diagram for Project-oriented Activity Theory. It is better to think about this diagram as a room with two windows and one door.
A room is a container that separates inside space and outside space. There are some actions people can do within a room. I pay attention to one special type of action: connecting to the outside space from the inside space. Let’s call it “Process”. The two windows are interfaces that refer to two “Tendencies”, Window1 refers to “Tendency 1” while Window 2 refers to “Tendency 2”. Each window has its own view of the outside space. Finally, there is a door that allows people to actually go out of the room. The door refers to “Orientation” which represents a direction of a real action of going out of the inside space. Once you get into the outside space, you can consider the new space as a new room and repeat the diagram.
This is a special type of spatial logic. The terms such as “Process”, “Tendency” and “Orientation” are placeholders of texts for describing the spatial logic. From the perspective of my diagram theory, the pure meta-diagram doesn’t need text. For instance, the Yin-yang symbol or Taijitu is a meta-diagram, can you find one text from it? However, we can add some texts as placeholders to a pure meta-diagram in order to better describe it.
Based on the germ-cell diagram, I designed a series of diagrams. The above diagram is the primary diagram of this diagram network. You can find more details here: Activity U (VIIII): Project-oriented Activity Theory.
5.4 Resource for Designing Cognitive Representation
There are many ways to design great diagrams. For example, you can turn metaphors into diagrams, use Diagram Blending to curate several diagrams together, adopt a meta-diagram to generate a knowledge framework, design visual areas for conceptual spaces, etc.
If you want to know more, you can consider the following books:
- Mind in Motion: How Action Shapes Thought (Barbara Tversky, 2019)
- Conceptual Space: The Geometry of Thought (Peter Gardenfors, 2004)
- Metaphors We Live By (George Lakoff & Mark Johnson, 1980)
I have discussed Conceptual Space and Canvas Design in a previous article D as Diagramming: The Creative Work Canvas.
The next article will discuss the other three perspectives.
You are most welcome to connect via the following social platforms:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverding
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oliverding
Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/oliverding
Boardle: https://www.boardle.io/users/oliver-ding
License
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License. Please click on the link for details.
